Strangulating the philosophy of RTI

The Supreme Court ruling that only present or former judges of apex court and chief justices of high courts should be heading the information commissions under the Right to Information Act hits at the very spirit of the law. Besides sounding suspiciously like strengthening the old boys’ network, the ruling takes the working of the law away from larger society.

It also effectively amends the RTI Act judicially, not on the grounds of it being in transgression of some constitutional principle but on the grounds of efficacy. This is clearly not the court’s domain. It is supposed to interpret the law. Judicial review should be to check if a law violates any basic rights of the citizens or is foul of any constitutional principle. The founding fathers never intended the judiciary to be improving upon the laws as it deemed fit.

If, in its wisdom, the legislature decided that the right to information would be best served by having information commissioners from diverse backgrounds, then so be it. The judges, like other citizens, have a right to disagree but they have no right to direct that only legally trained and qualified persons could serve on the post.

Even on merits, the ruling is open to criticism. The judges have rightly noted that information commissioners have to “undertake an adjudicatory process involving critical legal questions and niceties of law” including conflict between the right to privacy and right to information. Where they err is in thinking that only “legally qualified and trained mind possessing requisite experience” would be up to the task.

The law at present provides for appointment of “persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience of law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, or administration and governance.” Most people who fit this definition are exposed to issues of sufficient complexities and are experienced enough to decide on competing claims. In fact, they would have been taking such decisions in course of their work.

It is extraordinarily arrogant to assume that only those who have studied and practised law and sat on judicial benches would be able to deal with legal complexities. With due respect, law is not rocket science. It is not even accountancy. It is one thing to mandate that only qualified surgeons will undertake kidney transplant operation, quite another to think that only lawyers and judges would be able to deal with legal principles. The entire modern stress towards alternative dispute resolution mechanism like arbitration, mediation, and resolving disputes at bodies like panchayats is based on the belief that ordinary people are perfectly capable of adjudicatory role.

Law is only organized common sense and reflection of collective thinking of the society. That is why the task of making and amending laws is left to the legislature. It is supposed to reflect popular thinking. If that were not so, the world’s constitutions could have simply created a bench of brilliant legal minds to enact laws. In any case, the recourse to regular courts was always there in case any information commissioner erred grievously.

It could just as easily be argued-actually, that was indeed the philosophy of RTI Act-that people with non-judicial background would bring in a wider and fresher perspective while deciding appeals and cases. They could have gone beyond the technicalities of law and applied wider principles of fairness, justice, and common good that the so-called legally qualified and judicially trained minds have often been incapable of. The governments, both state and central, erred in appointing only former bureaucrats as information commissioners so far. The ends of the Act would have been better served if the net were cast wider and many persons as envisaged in the original law had been appointed. Now the Supreme Court ruling will reverse that spirit. The ruling, indeed, is a step back in evolution of both jurisprudence and India as a mature democracy.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Author

Alok Tiwari is deputy resident editor of The Times of India, Nagpur. In a career of nearly 30 years, he has reported on practically every beat. He is deeply interested in social and environmental issues and loves to travel, especially in wildlife rich forests of central India.

Alok Tiwari is deputy resident editor of The Times of India, Nagpur. In a career of nearly 30 years, he has reported on practically every beat. He is deeply. . .

From around the web

More from The Times of India

Comments

Top Comment

()

Author

Alok Tiwari is deputy resident editor of The Times of India, Nagpur. In a career of nearly 30 years, he has reported on practically every beat. He is deeply interested in social and environmental issues and loves to travel, especially in wildlife rich forests of central India.

Alok Tiwari is deputy resident editor of The Times of India, Nagpur. In a career of nearly 30 years, he has reported on practically every beat. He is deeply. . .